Product Liability Lawsuits: Navigating Battery Defects and Accountability

Product liability claims hinge on proving safety defects, complicating compensation after battery-related accidents.

### Understanding Product Liability in Battery-Related Lawsuits
* 🔋  The first step in a product liability claim is establishing a defect, which must be related to **safety**. This can include **manufacturing defects**, **design defects**, or **labeling defects**.
* 💼  The definition of a "manufacturer" is crucial, as it can be ambiguous in cases of imported or processed goods. The law typically holds the **actual manufacturer** responsible for defects.
* 🏭  In 2018, a "presumption of defect" was added to the Product Liability Act, making it **easier for consumers to claim damages**. This presumption applies to products with **advanced technology**.
* 🤝  Joint liability clauses are important in cases with multiple manufacturers, ensuring that **all parties share responsibility for defects**.
* 🔧  The situation becomes complex when components are replaced or when there are **multiple levels of manufacturing** (e.g., cells, packs, modules).
* 🔍  Proving the **exact cause of a defect**, especially in cases of fire or other catastrophic events, can be challenging. The burden of proof typically lies with the **consumer**.
* 🌐  Overseas, product liability laws may differ, with some countries having a **presumption of defect** in case of accidents.
* ⚖️  The current legal framework in South Korea has limitations, as evidenced by the **lack of successful battery-related product liability lawsuits**. The **burden of proof** remains a significant challenge.

Understanding all the knowledge of the world, when an accident occurs or a fire breaks out, various lawsuits are likely to arise. Is there a characteristic of lawsuits related to secondary batteries or similar issues? In any case, since an accident happened with the battery, I want to receive compensation from someone. So, since this is a battery issue, I would want to claim based on product liability against the company that manufactured the battery. They might sue, or perhaps the automobile company is the problem, and I would sue them, right? 

From my perspective, I have suffered damage, so how can I receive compensation? In this case, we need to look into product liability. For product liability law, a defect must be recognized first. That’s correct, the defect must be acknowledged. However, there is a distinction between a defect and a flaw. How are they different?

If someone says, I bought a product, but it has defects, for example, if I bought an electric car and it makes strange noises or the door won't open properly, then yes, there are defects in the product. When we talk about defects, it means that the product is not performing as I expected. However, a defect must be related to safety. The Product Liability Act defines a defect as a lack of safety. If the performance is not meeting expectations, that is not directly related to safety; it's more of a complaint rather than a basis for a lawsuit. Defects can be a basis for a lawsuit. Defects are categorized into manufacturing defects, design defects, and labeling defects. If we initially design a product incorrectly, that is a design defect.

Such products do not work well. However, as you create them, some may turn out to be defective or have manufacturing defects. If these defects lead to a lack of safety, that is when you can make a claim under the Product Liability Act. Generally, if a battery catches fire, it is not safe. So, whether there is a defect or not is not really the issue. What I mean is, it is very clear that there is a defect. If a battery catches fire, claiming that this has nothing to do with safety is simply unreasonable. Therefore, there is not much dispute regarding the defect itself. However, the manufacturer needs to determine who they should claim damages from, and they need to make a claim against the manufacturer. But...

The definition of a manufacturer is somewhat ambiguous. A manufacturer is someone who produces, processes, or imports goods. To discuss this, let’s start with the aspect of importation. For example, if I buy something through direct purchase, and then sell it a year later, that doesn’t make me a manufacturer. 

Right? In that case, I am not a manufacturer. However, when it comes to imported and processed goods, it can be different. If I buy something from someone who didn’t manufacture it themselves but imported it and then sold it, that person is not a manufacturer either. 

The seller in this case is simply a seller, not a manufacturer. This is how the law is structured. Do you understand? Yes, that’s how the law works. This is a separate matter regarding the definition, but because there’s no sale involved, it creates a loophole. However, I’m not quite sure about the specifics of that.

I don't know, but the seller is not responsible for defects. So, if this person sold the electric car thinking it was a good product, saying that the seller is responsible is excessive. For example, if Hyundai made it, then rather than blaming the intermediary distributor who sold it, the person who made the product should be held accountable. That's the point. So, when we buy something, it says manufacturer on it, and we should claim it there. However, generally, consumers tend to think that they can complain directly. That's not how it works, and this creates significant problems later on, which I will explain.

I will provide you with the information. First, it needs to be acknowledged that a defect has occurred. Then, it must be proven that damages have resulted from it. Ultimately, that is how I can file a claim for damages. However, regarding the Product Liability Act, there was a presumption of defect that was newly established in 2018. Before this provision was introduced, it was necessary to prove both that a defect existed and that damages occurred separately. But that is not the case. The Product Liability Act was enacted in 2002. Even before that, it was recognized through precedents. Product liability was acknowledged, and from the consumer's perspective, with products being complex and containing advanced technology, how could one identify what the defect was? This has been an ongoing issue.

From the time when there was no product liability law, the Supreme Court had established a legal principle in case law. This principle stated that for products that incorporate advanced technology, it suffices to prove that there was a defect and that this defect caused damage. What this means is that if an accident occurs due to a cause that falls under the manufacturer's exclusive control while the product is being used normally, then liability would be recognized. In everyday situations, if a problem arises, it implies that compensation will be provided. That is correct. This principle was recognized in case law and continued when the Product Liability Act was first enacted. However, in 2018, this principle was codified into law. The important issue that always arises here is...

What it means is that it should be used normally; it must be in a state of normal use. The victimized consumer has to prove this. They have to establish that they used it normally. For example, if I charged my device using a charger, and the current coming from the charger suddenly fluctuated, that might not be considered normal use. It could be that the sine wave needs to be stable; otherwise, it raises questions about why such fluctuations are occurring. This is a problem. 

Additionally, there are things that consumers need to maintain regularly, and if they fail to do so, the manufacturer might have records indicating that maintenance was not performed. This also means it was not in a state of normal use. This could relate to the battery, for instance. In other cases, there could be various issues with the device.

It's a mechanical device, and you need to keep replacing the consumables, like the oil filter. Yes, you have to replace the consumables properly, but it hasn’t been done on time, and it has been left unused for a very long time. This is not a normal usage condition. Then, oh my, yes, so all of this needs to be proven. Next, it has to be shown that it was caused by a reason within the manufacturer's actual dominion. The concept of actual dominion is more complicated than expected. What does it mean for a cause to belong to the actual dominion? Well, here's the thing: When we usually buy something, we purchase it with a battery pack included. For example, let’s consider a smartphone. When you buy a smartphone, the companies that make the circuit board, the display, and the battery are all different, right? So, each manufacturer's actual dominion consists of the things they have made.

Yes, so the battery is divided into different areas of my house, like the circuit board and the LCD. This is how things are divided, and this is where problems can arise. We need to clearly identify who is responsible for what issues. Right? Fortunately, there are joint liability clauses. For example, if I sold the entire mobile phone, then the person who sold the entire phone is the manufacturer of the entire phone. And if there's a problem with the battery inside, then the person who sold the battery is also the manufacturer, right? In this case, there are two manufacturers responsible for the battery. The car battery, for instance, has both Hyundai and LG Energy Solution as manufacturers. So when there are multiple manufacturers, they all share joint liability.

It's a responsibility. So when we initially bought an item in bulk, if an issue arises with the battery after a while, we can receive compensation without much trouble. This applies to manufacturers, whether it's LG or any other company. However, there are some variations to this, and I'll explain that. Yes, it can get quite complicated. You might not be aware of this, but for example, with an electric golf cart, there could be cases where it catches fire. Additionally, there are uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) that use batteries to continuously provide power in case of a sudden blackout. These devices are equipped with batteries. However, batteries need to be replaced periodically because they undergo continuous charging and discharging.

As time goes by, the performance tends to decrease. Yes, just because the battery performance has declined, it doesn't mean we have to replace the entire cart. Yes, we can just change the battery. For example, we could just replace the UPS battery, or maybe not. Now, let's say we only replaced the battery. There could be cases where the company that sold the cart says, It's been about five years, so you need to replace the battery. They come over and, without much thought, say, Please replace it. Then, they come and change it, but a fire breaks out. What do you think should happen? From the golf course owner's perspective, do you think they would consider whether the issue is with the cart or the battery? Who do they think they should claim damages from? The cart company, right? They replaced the battery because you told them to. Ah, that's correct. This is not just common sense. According to product liability laws, when it comes to manufacturing, there are provisions for manufacturers.

If you look here, there is processing, right? This isn't manufacturing the battery, is it? No, it's not importing either, right? So, they installed the battery. This is processing. Oh, no, the battery was installed in the cart that was sold by the manufacturer, right? There was a problem with the cart, right? After that, they changed the battery. Before the change, the company that made the cart has joint liability, so the battery, which I bought and installed, is also my responsibility. That's correct. But in the meantime, if the battery was changed and there was a fire, then the cart manufacturer is not responsible. So only the battery manufacturer is responsible, right? The liability has shifted. So, I thought this would happen. When they changed it, the cart company must have come and replaced it, right? Then they are responsible for what they made. If I bought a Hyundai car and took it to a Hyundai service center...

I went to replace the battery, but the issue is that since then, it's not Hyundai anymore. There is a ruling that states this. It's strange that it’s not recognized as such; that’s very odd. Is it just the batteries, or is it generally the case? In the battery sector, this has become a leading case, and it continues to have an impact. So, should we not replace it? We should not replace it. If we do, what issues arise? If I replace the battery, I can't go to the golf cart company. Then the golf cart company would say, This is not under our control. From the consumer's perspective, I would need to clarify where the issue with the battery originated. So, I would have to talk to the battery company. But as I mentioned earlier, the significant components are in the battery pack, right? However, the battery pack manufacturing company and the module manufacturing company...

The companies are different, of course. Naturally, they must be different. You might have a chance to look at something like a battery pack. If you do, you'll see that it says it's a battery pack manufacturer, and it lists the well-known companies that provide our cells. It might say, We used LG Chem, for example. Then, if there's a problem with the pack, the question arises whether the issue is with the pack or with the cells. In that case, they cannot be held jointly liable. 

It's like when you buy a car; you expect that the battery included is also the manufacturer's responsibility. So, the pack company receives the cells and assembles the pack, right? That means all companies are involved. It’s similar to eating a bowl of instant noodles made from 'Gompyu' flour at a snack shop in Mapo; if you get an upset stomach, the shop in Mapo would be held responsible. The implication is that you should go after the source of the flour, which is the real issue. That's the point. However, the problem is that we need to delineate where the responsibility lies.

You need to clarify whether you should file a lawsuit against them. This is a matter of civil litigation, where I am claiming damages because I have suffered losses. Or is it about product liability law? Generally, in such cases, the victim must prove their damages. However, in this specific area, it's about whether the manufacturer should take responsibility. 

For example, the company that produces Gompy flour should be held accountable. Even if we file a civil lawsuit, we need to approach it this way. The irony of product liability is that it was introduced because, generally, the manufacturer is responsible for the safety of their products.

When a case is brought under civil law, there are so many things to prove. How can the victim prove all of that? So, they came up with the product liability law to make it easier to handle. If we start to dissect the control over this, it becomes the same issue. For instance, if we talk about Gompyo flour, and then we bring in Simomapo instant noodles and Gompyo flour together, who is going to take responsibility? So, it states that only the causes related to substantial control are liable. However, as you mentioned, there are other provisions regarding joint liability, and interpreting this based on current case law is overly excessive. In general, joint liability should apply. For example, if Hyundai is replacing the battery, it was Hyundai that instructed the replacement, so shouldn't that interpretation lead to joint liability?

The interpretation is too narrow right now. When we talk about joint liability, if I choose anyone among the three—Kompyo flour, Anseongtangmyeon, or Mapo Bunsik—that person becomes the responsible party. Therefore, Kompyo flour might feel unfairly treated. If someone cooked ramen at Bunsik and got sick, should I be held responsible just because Kompyo flour supplied the flour? That could happen, right? Among those three, why should I be the one who suffers? How do I know if it was Kompyo flour? Was it the restaurant's fault for not cooking properly? Did they make a mistake when preparing the ramen? Maybe the flour was the right amount, but it was left out for a while and spoiled. How would I know that? So, if we change the battery, strange things can happen. If I do it all at once, there’s no problem. But if I do it in the middle, that might not work.

However, usually the company that sold the product is responsible for replacing it, right? That's generally the case. Nevertheless, regarding the uninterruptible power supply I mentioned earlier, most cases are similar. Typically, when it's first introduced, the company that sells it delivers everything at once. About five years later, they come and say, Now you need to replace the battery. They would say, Please replace the battery, and it would be done. However, from that point on, they don't anticipate that problems might arise. 

So, the law is flawed in this situation. Yes, the law is indeed flawed. But it's not that the cart company is telling you to go; there's a problem. If they had said, Customers, you can go and replace the battery at a local store, and then hung up, the customers would have gone to buy the battery themselves. But if a problem arises, that could indeed be an issue. Then, we need to check with the battery company, right? Yes, that's correct.

So, if the consumer decides to handle it themselves, that's one thing. But if I bought it and tried to fix it through the company I initially purchased from, then why can't I? For example, if a golf cart catches fire shortly after purchase, can I just sue the cart company? Or do I need to determine whether the issue is with the cart, the battery, or something else? Currently, strategically, I have no choice but to involve everyone. I have to bring all parties into the lawsuit. When filing a lawsuit, I need to include the other party as well. If I sue the cart company, they might say, It's not our fault, and try to evade responsibility. So, I also need to involve the battery company, and if it’s a battery issue, I need to include the cell manufacturer too. I have to do all of that, while also forcing them to prove that there’s nothing wrong with their products.

It happens because when a fire breaks out somewhere, it can cause damage in various areas. For example, the circuit board can melt, and the battery can be punctured due to heat. After that, it becomes impossible to determine where the fire initially started. It's unclear whether the problem arose from someone's delivery area. Even the National Forensic Service may report that they cannot identify the starting point. There are many cases where they declare it undetermined. This recent battery fire incident is one of those cases. Once it is deemed undetermined, it becomes truly difficult to find answers. Then, who should be sued? Is it due to my poor management that the fire occurred, or was there an inherent defect that caused the fire? Additionally, it is unclear which delivery area it originated from. If there is a defect, is it from the battery company, the raw materials used in the battery, or an issue with the circuit? The battery pack also has a Battery Management System (BMS) to protect the battery cells.

The management system has various protective circuit devices, and problems can arise from them as well. But, attorney, is it not the responsibility of the person filing the lawsuit to prove their case? In principle, the person who claims damages must provide proof of where the problem occurred. How can that be proven? That's how the world operates. If I simply say, I was hurt because of you, then I suddenly have to prove that I wasn't at fault when I get sued. Of course, that's true, but in this case, for example, if there was a fire in the cart, how can I determine the exact cause? That's impossible, isn't it? I apologize, but from the cart company's perspective, if someone suddenly says there was a fire, we can't just accept that. If there were fires everywhere, we could understand, but only one customer had a fire.

In the cart, there are various items, right? You might have placed a lighter in the cart, or maybe you boiled ramen in it. But if you tell us to take responsibility, then how are we supposed to respond? That's usually how it goes. Typically, it would be, Did you eat the ramen? So, they would say that it was not used normally. Right? And the representative should not only look at it from the consumer's perspective since they are running a business. For example, if my child suddenly has their midterm grades drop by half, but when I compare it to last year, nothing has changed except for the understanding that they studied for an hour a day. You all need to take responsibility, or you should prove that understanding has no negative impact on academic performance. How frustrating would that be? Well, that could happen. Yes, that could happen, but I...

For example, it seems that the direct cause of that drop in performance is not something I can prove. I'm not sure how to demonstrate that. In this case, as I mentioned earlier, I sued the company that sold the golf carts and the company that supplied the batteries. What do you think the conclusion was? They all said it was not our responsibility. That's right, no one is responsible. Why? Because we don't know where it came from. Since we don't know, the conclusion ends up like this. However, if there was a fire just a month after I bought it, and nothing had been changed, then the cart company would have to figure out where it started. But the cart company doesn’t need to come and find out. It's just that the entire product is at fault. Anyway, you are responsible for it. Since the damage was 2 billion won, you need to pay that amount. In that case, there should be product liability laws overseas as well.

Where does the burden of proof lie overseas? Overseas, the legal texts differ from those in our country. As I mentioned earlier, there are two aspects: the state of normal use and the substantial dominion area. In Japan, for instance, there is a Product Liability Law, but there is no discussion about the subject responsible for the burden of proof. Therefore, it is not particularly meaningful. In the United States, which follows common law, there is no explicit explanation regarding the burden of proof for product liability in statutory law. However, there are authoritative commentaries that organize and interpret case law in the U.S. They indicate that there is a presumption that if an accident occurs, it is typically due to a defect in the product. Furthermore, it relates to sales or...

사고는 유통 당시에 제품의 하자가 아니고서는 발생하지 않으니, 이렇게만 입증하면 됩니다. 이는 우리의 상식에 더 부합합니다. 예를 들어, 맥도날드에서 커피를 마시다가 쏟아 허벅지가 데였다면, 커피는 뜨거울 수 있으니 그럴 수 있겠다고 생각할 수 있지만, 허벅지가 이렇게 될 리는 없습니다. 일반적으로, 그 당시 맥도날드 커피의 온도가 몇 도였는지에 대한 정보가 없다면, 이 주장은 말이 안 됩니다. 그러니까 이건 상식적인 수준이라고 생각합니다. 우리나라처럼 정상적으로 사용 중인 상태에서의 실질적인 지배 영역에 대한 논의는 전혀 없잖아요. 그다음에 최근에는 제점 책임 지침이라는 것이 생겼는데, 이 지침은 연합이 만들어서 회원국들이 그에 따라 입법을 하게 되어 있습니다.

However, the guidelines were recently revised. It has been almost 40 years since a complete overhaul was done, and the revision occurred about three months ago. If you look here, there is an assumption being made. This assumption states that if manufacturers, upon the victim's request, do not disclose relevant evidence, it is presumed that they are at fault. There is also a requirement that evidence must be disclosed unconditionally, and there are specifications that must be met. It's the same in our country; just failing to meet those specifications is enough to make an assumption. Additionally, if there is a clear malfunction that causes a defect, it is also presumed. So, regarding the golf cart where the battery was replaced, under the U.S. product liability law that you just introduced, what basis is there for determining who is responsible? In principle, liability can be assigned to everything, including the battery.

You know, I don't have to prove the actual control over the battery, whether it's the battery itself or the cart company. Whether it's the cell company or the company that makes the casing, they all come together, right? And you have to prove that you have no fault, right? But I think proving that you have no fault will also be difficult because once the issue arises, the scene becomes chaotic. That's right. So, from the perspective of the manufacturers, that's a significant burden. In that case, how does it work over there? They do ask you to prove it, but the problem is that companies end up fighting among themselves. Then, from the consumer's perspective, they can just watch. Eventually, a conclusion naturally comes out as the companies figure out among themselves who is at fault.

As they fight among themselves, claiming it's not my responsibility and it's my fault, the actual truth begins to emerge. If they end up concluding that this is the seller's fault in their struggle to avoid responsibility, then the consumer will ultimately receive compensation from the seller, which seems reasonable. However, if the cart and the seller are at odds, and the cart claims that the seller is at fault, the seller might agree, saying, Yes, it’s my fault, but they won't admit to any wrongdoing. This assertion could be accepted as valid. Lawsuits are not decided by majority vote, so how does that work? It's not about majority rule; it needs to be based on substantial evidence and scientific grounds. Therefore, it won't always be straightforward, but there will certainly be some pressure. If they fight with a 2 to 1 advantage, it's amusing, but still...

Although it is intended to separate manufacturers, there is a system in place that makes it easier for consumers to file lawsuits, which is based on overseas systems. Up until now, there have been very few cases where compensation has been received regarding lawsuits related to batteries under product liability law. Currently, the leading case continues to be referenced and utilized. The leading case you mentioned was the golf cart incident. In that case, the golf cart company was found not liable by the Supreme Court. The ruling stated that they bore no responsibility, and it was unclear who was responsible. According to product liability law, the burden of proof does not lie with the seller or manufacturer to prove their lack of negligence; rather, it is the consumer who must provide evidence. This ruling raises issues about the introduction of product liability law.

The situation is exactly the same, right? Yes, that's right.

[하이라이트] 공포의 전기차 화재, 보상 한푼도 못 받습니다 (법무법인 디엘지 황규호 변호사)

📣 사람을 찾습니다
🙋 언더스탠딩과 함께 일할 분을 찾습니다!

직무: 영상제작PD, 기자, 인사담당자, 마케팅담당자 
지원 접수: 이메일 접수 to.understanding.official@gmail.com
제출 서류: 이력서, 포트폴리오
접수 기간: 상시채용


라이브는 삼프로TV에서, 클립영상은 언더스탠딩에서!

매일 저녁 7시~9시

문의 : to.understanding.official@gmail.com


언더스탠딩 : 세상의 모든 지식

Lawsuits often arise from accidents or fires involving batteries, with claims typically made against the manufacturer for product liability.

Product liability law requires a recognized defect, which can be categorized into manufacturing, design, and labeling defects, with a focus on safety.

The definition of a manufacturer is ambiguous, as it includes those who produce, process, or import goods, but does not extend to sellers who simply resell products.

The seller is not responsible for product defects; accountability should lie with the manufacturer.

The Product Liability Act, established in 2002 and updated in 2018, shifted the burden of proof for defects and damages.

Consumers often struggle to prove normal use, and failure to maintain products regularly can weaken their claims for damages.

Mechanical devices require timely replacement of consumables, and failure to do so can lead to complicated liability issues.

Each manufacturer's actual dominion is defined by the parts they produce, and joint liability clauses hold multiple manufacturers responsible for issues arising from their products.

In cases of device malfunctions, such as a fire from a battery replacement, the responsible party for damages can be unclear, leading to potential claims against the manufacturer of the entire device.

The Complexity of Liability in Battery Installation

The process of installing a battery in a cart involves joint liability between the cart manufacturer and the battery installer.

When the battery is changed and a fire occurs, the liability shifts solely to the battery manufacturer.

The case highlights the challenges of determining responsibility in multi-company supply chains and the importance of clarifying liability in civil litigation and product liability law.

Challenges of Proving Liability in Civil Law

Product liability law was created to simplify the process of proving responsibility in cases with multiple parties involved.

The current interpretation of joint liability is overly narrow, leading to unfairness for those involved.

When issues arise, victims often feel the need to involve all parties in a lawsuit to ensure accountability, creating a complex legal situation.

The Challenges of Determining Responsibility in Fire Incidents

Fire outbreaks can cause widespread damage, making it difficult to identify the initial source.

The responsibility for the fire's occurrence is often unclear, leading to undetermined conclusions from forensic services.

Legal actions to assign blame are complicated, as proving the exact cause of the problem is challenging, and companies involved often deny responsibility.

The Burden of Proof in Product Liability Overseas

Overseas legal texts differ from those in the speaker's country, with Japan lacking a clear discussion on the burden of proof for product liability.

, common law provides a presumption that accidents are due to product defects, with authoritative commentaries guiding the interpretation of case law.

Recent revisions to the product liability guidelines in the U.

have introduced assumptions of fault for manufacturers who fail to disclose relevant evidence, leading to potential liability for all parties involved in the product's supply chain.

The Complexities of Responsibility in Product Liability

The struggle for responsibility among parties involved can lead to the consumer receiving compensation from the seller.

Lawsuits are determined by substantial evidence, not majority rule, making the process complex.

The leading case in product liability, involving a golf cart, resulted in the company being found not liable, raising questions about the effectiveness of the law.